The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here

[UnbiasedObserver]

Fair enough.

I think we often take for granted that everybody knows the rules but so many generations of students have come through here that this institutional knowledge of what flies and what doesn't apparently has been lost.

Exactly.

And yeah I'm a practicing attorney.  In Biglaw at that.  I come back when I can and moderate the board mainly b/c I honestly feel that I'm in this position due to a lot of the advice that I picked up from this site.  So I have no problem giving back whenever/however I can to help others along this path.

Well, I would like to say thank you! 

I understand where you're coming from wrt giving back to this site.  It really helped me too, and I try to help people on here (when I can). 

[ISUCKATTHIS]

If we lift the ban on this poster, how many seconds do you think it will be before they continue the behavior that landed them in the ban zone in the first place?

I don't necessarily disagree with you there.

I'm worried more about: a) the appearance of impropriety; and b) the lack of clear procedures (at least it seems) to deal with banning someone.

I think there should be a clear set guidelines here, in a sticky, that describes what behavior is not acceptable.  I think that in that sticky, there needs to be a certain protocol followed wrt notice, warnings, etc., so the person has fair notice that their next post/action will have consequences if they don't "shape up."  (And honestly, I don't think it would be bad to have first a private warning, then proceed to a public warning in another sticky, and go from there.)

Did that happen in this case?  Did you tell Pilofilo, "One more time and you're done?"  Or was it just a generalized statement?

Also, I would like to mention that when you said, "Cool it" (or something to that effect), that to me is very vague.  I would've never have thought that you might ban someone.  I have been here a long time, and I've had fairly limited contact with you despite my longevity here. 

And I don't think sheltron's viewpoint is "unpopular" as he thinks it is.  In fact, I agree with him.  I just think that banning as-applied in this case may have been done in an improper fashion, either due to letting emotion getting in the way or not having proper procedures in place. 

Anybody who has seen a good-sized amount of my posts knows that I believe in respecting other posters and their viewpoints.  I don't believe in trolling, or any of that nonsense.  I think it's not right, and it detracts from the community.

So for me to stick up for him, when really he was being a bother to many people, is telling (at least I think). 

Speaking of banning folks, Earl Cat and I have talked it over and we agree we need some more mods around here. So I'll start another thread for nominations.

That's a great idea. 

I agree with all of this, especially (1) that there are lots of levels of moderation that should be used before suspending or banning people and (2) that people should almost always get warnings/notice before any permanent action is taken on their accounts.  There are probably some extraordinary situations where immediate banning is the only real option, though I don't think that PILOFOLO's case is one of them.

ETA: I generally trust the mods to make these determinations, but it has been nice to see how open Sands has been to questions and concerns about his handling of this incident.  His forthright, non-defensive, and responsive behavior is really refreshing -- and just the kind of accountability we need from our mods.  (Thanks, Sands!)

I agree.  I suspect that they are all alts of the same person.  They all use caps in their names heavily, and they sound the same (and stick up for each other).  I'm pretty sure PILOFOLO and ISUCKATTHIS are the same poster. 

Yes.  Also, one appears to log into the site immediately after the other logs out and their posting bears several distinctive quirks.  And no, the irony of being accused of running some kind of cybermob by someone who is actually attempting to create a cybermob through various alts is not lost on me.  I hope we're wrong, though.

Wow, hell hath no fury like Miss P when someone disagrees with her.  What WON'T you throw at me, Miss P?  Way to bend over backwards in yet another attempt to discredit and marginalize someone who disagrees with you. 

Here's one thing that kinda makes your contention above a little laughable.  PILOFOLO_REGIL has been banned for a couple weeks now. 

[Miss P]

Wow, hell hath no fury like Miss P when someone disagrees with her.  What WON'T you throw at me, Miss P?  Way to bend over backwards in yet another attempt to discredit and marginalize someone who disagrees with you. 

Here's one thing that kinda makes your contention above a little laughable.  PILOFOLO_REGIL has been banned for a couple weeks now. 

And I'm sure it must be a pain in the neck to log in from a different computer or mask your IP address.

In case I was unclear, I was referring not only to you and PILOFOLO but to MONDATTA as well.  I think it's somewhat telling that, for instance, neither one of you logged in for three days until this evening; he logged out at 6:24 p.m. and then you logged in and posted this 3.5 minutes later.  But whatever.  As I said, I hope I'm wrong.  (And I'm not angry, just as I assume you weren't angry when you leveled the same accusation at IrrX last month.  I'm just calling it as I see it.)

[ISUCKATTHIS]

Wait... so now there are three of us?  I mean, we all post on Sunday evenings and not on Friday or Saturday evenings.  I'm sure that's unheard of.  And there are capital letters in our sigs.  Another impossible coincidence.  LOL, proof positive.

I'd say you have more than enough evidence to get us all banned along with anybody else with whom you disagree. 

I didn't mean to imply you were "angry," just that you were going after me every way you can think of.  Which is pretty undeniable.

[Miss P]

Wait... so now there are three of us?  I mean, we all post on Sunday evenings and not on Saturday evenings.  And there are capital letters in our sigs.  LOL, proof positive.

I'd say you have more than enough evidence to get us all banned along with anybody else with whom you disagree. 

This thread has a purpose: we're trying to figure out the appropriate procedure and circumstances for banning people.  You claim to be concerned about the issue, so I don't know why you seem so intent on mucking the discussion up.  Do you have anything constructive to add?

Sands has already made it clear that he would never honor a request to ban a user because another user disagreed with him or her. You don't even have to believe me that I wouldn't complain about a user for such a stupid reason (though I don't understand how you got so hooked on this canard); I don't have the power to ban users and the people who do, the board's moderators, wouldn't accede to my whims.  Also, as should be obvious to you, I rather enjoy a good debate.  I just don't enjoy this personal harassment.     

[ISUCKATTHIS]

It's somewhat amusing how any time someone disagrees with you he's necessarily "harassing" you and "mucking up" relevant discussion.

Discussion of PILOFOLO_REGIL is perfectly relevant to this thread.  It has to do with (to my knowledge) the most recent banning of a poster on this site.  If the purpose of this thread is to debate that process, how is this not relevant?

You maintain that discussing the banning of a poster in this thread is merely "mucking" it up and is "personal harassment."  Yet, you're the one filling this very thread with one invented, personal and ridiculous accusation after another.  How are your various accusations against me relevant to the discussion of the banning process?  How are they NOT personal harassment?

Now please stop with the personal harassment and let's have a reasonable discussion.  Sands did say you can get banned for that kind of thing.

[Miss P]

I didn't mean to imply you were "angry," just that you were going after me every way you can think of.  Which is pretty undeniable.

Okay.  I didn't see this as going after you.  I was merely agreeing with another poster who saw the distinctive similarities between you and PILOFOLO.  This is a relatively mild accusation as far as I'm concerned, especially in comparison with the kinds of things you've been saying about me.  There are plenty of posters who have multiple accounts around here.  Not all of them adopt the same personae -- say, patent agents in the middle of their classes at lower T14 schools on the Atlantic seaboard -- and post in the same threads seriatim, but it's up to you how you want to do it.

You're the one stalking me all over the place and inventing one ridiculous accusation after another.  Speaking of personal harassment...

In any event, you admitted you complained about PILOFOLO_REGIL and Sands admitted that this, and his snarky comment, were enough to get him banned.  I think we're all on the same page.  I understand you'd like to spin it a different way and you're welcome to do so. The facts, however, speak for themselves.

All of the above is perfectly relevant to this thread.  It has to do with (to my knowledge) the most recent banning of a poster on this site.  If the purpose of this thread is to debate that process, how is this not relevant? 

Now please stop with the personal harassment and let's have a reasonable discussion.  Sands did say you can get banned for that kind of thing.

1. I don't know how you define stalking.  I do believe, however, that I had posted in each of the three threads in which we've communicated before you did, which seems like an ineffective stalking technique.  Also, I post on other subjects, but you merely post about me.

2. Sands did not "admit" that my complaint and PILOFOLO's snarky comment were enough to get PILOFOLO banned.  Indeed, Sands said that he had received several complaints about PILOFOLO before even commenting in the "Is The LAW SCHOOL DISCUSSION Board Cliquish?" thread.  I complained (mildly, in a way that I made public on the board) after and in response to Sands' comment, which means that my complaint was one of at least three.

3. My behavior as a poster on this board who occasionally complains to moderators about inappropriate posts is not particularly relevant to this discussion.  We're talking about what the mods should do.  I don't have any control of that, though I have criticized the board's moderation on multiple occasions, including the one that gave rise to this thread,* and I would like to see more transparency and accountability (as I think you would).  Also, I'm sure that if we have clearer guidelines about when banning and other forms of moderation are appropriate, it will help users better understand how to use the report-to-moderator function, which will, in turn, make the moderators' jobs easier.  That said, whether one user uses or abuses the function isn't going to make the difference.  Even if I repeatedly complained about posts just because their authors were Yankees fans, for instance, talking about it at any length would detract from the real purpose of this thread, which is to discuss how the moderators should respond if something like that happens. 




* I thought that Sands' admonition to Comotellamas was inappropriate if he wasn't going to comment on other posters' behavior -- which seemed worse.

[Miss P]

I can't keep up with your edits.

You maintain that discussing the banning of a poster in this thread is merely "mucking" it up and is "personal harassment."  Yet, you're the one filling this very thread with one invented, personal and ridiculous accusation after another.  How are your various accusations against me relevant to the discussion of the banning process?  How are they NOT personal harassment?

I joined (but did not invent) one accusation.  And it was relevant to the thread because Sheltron had posted the following:

I'm going to voice an unpopular viewpoint now. There are a few posters, namely isuckatthis and jake_mondatta, who seem to exist only to make wild accusations that have no basis in reality or logic. They are very good at getting people heated beyond reason (THIS IS THE INTERNET PEOPLE) through personal attacks (they're doing it to you, burningsands). Every thread I have ever seen them involved in runs on with pages and pages of the same garbage, and frankly, I and many other posters are sick of it.

That being said, I don't think they deserve banning necessarily, although they are skirting the edge. They come very close to personal harrassment, but I think the other posters here are grown up enough to shrug it off. I DO think, however, that if the moderators are getting enough complaints, and such posters don't stop, then it is ban worthy.

jm2c.

Whether you are the same person, and whether these accounts exist for some purpose other than to bolster each other's arguments, then, became directly relevant to the question of whether any form of moderation would be appropriate when seemingly endless conflicts like ours arise.  (I doubt it, but I am going to ask you, again, to stop.)

[UnbiasedObserver]

Just let it go, ladies and gentlemen....

[Miss P]

Just let it go, ladies and gentlemen....

I am sorry for my part in this.  FWIW, this is easier said than done, however, when you feel as if you're under siege.